Derek, its simplifying what I'm saying to reply you don't care about people's quotations. I only said that as a quick means to locate other scientists and scholars that took the time to investigate all of Ehrman's work that bring up valid points. I wasn't saying to listen to YouTube subscribers?

You made a strong statement saying it's IGNORANT to say he did not exist, you back up this ignorance based on the writings of one man that has been proven wrong. Now, that portion is up to debate, but if a logical debate is warranted based on information provided then that is enough to say atheists that do not believe Jesus lived didn't come to that decision from ignorance.

You say Ehrman has proof. Through reading his work I simply found no proof or anything that would make me gnostically say factually that a Jesus Christ ever existed, especially to the point of calling others ignorant.

Ehrman does not make the best case against DM. Murdock. But this argument perpetuated by Murdock/Acharya S. is a conspiracy theory. A lot of this comes from that Acharya is an egyptologist, and not an expert on early Christianity. Some of these parallels are bizarre.

Ceremonial washings by the god anubis for burial does not make a baptism for instance.

The virgin birth is better explained by reading the LXX which demanded a virgin in the prophecy, than it is being compared to Isis, who was not really a virgin, but more of a necrophiliac.

The problem is that the New Testament is a large corpus of information about what Jesus supposedly did. You can find a lot of parallels to it in places all around the world, but the parallels to 2nd temple messianic prophecies are so much stronger, than the parallels to to cosmic mythology.

The reason why Ehrman does such a poor job refuting Murdock, is that he fails to take the argument seriously.

You guys may be interested in this thread that I started a thread on Nicea and the formation of the New Testament that you may be interested in. I definitely want the Ehrman position represented there, as I oppose Ehrman's conjectures that stray from Bruce Metzger his mentor.

Well Derek, I know that, and you know that about Nicea, but Atheists tend to toss skepticism and due diligence out the window far too often if dealing with a criticism of the Bible. Classic example of belief perseverance ( http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098) So you have to present things in a way that is categorized according to majority understanding, rather than according to fact.

A man named Jesus most likely existed - Almost every biblical scholar agrees on that whether or not they are muslim , jew , christian or atheist. So I also feel it is ignorant to say he didn't exist. You can say it's possible he didn't exist just like it's possible your parents aren't your blood parents and that it's possible you were adopted and they lied to you. But is it plausible? Certainly not.

And to a question above, I actually have read most of Ehrmans books and watched every video and also watched debates of historians who suggest he never existed. The arguments and contextual evidence highly suggest he did exist.

By the way, Richard Carrier when you listen to him debate - He sort of says it's definitely a possibility that a man named Jesus didn't have to exist for the N.T. to have been created around the life of an imaginary figure. But he doesn't really sound like he's making a knock down argument with contextual evidence of his non existence. Mostly though, his arguments suggest that most of the details in the N.T. about Jesus do not represent the history of antiquity - I could be wrong, but I don't remember Richard Carrier outright saying he believes the nonexistence of Jesus altogether is more plausible than the existence of a man named Jesus with tons of legend surrounding him.